Even at BAIL STAGE, Courts are not Bound by the Provisions of law applied in the FIR rather have to see the Offence Applicable from the contents of Prosecution Case.

 *2022 MLD 392*

Even at BAIL STAGE, Courts are not Bound by the Provisions of law applied in the FIR rather have to see the Offence Applicable from the contents of Prosecution Case.

There is No cavil to the proposition that courts, by virtue of very purpose of their creation, are required to do justice. The expression “justice” in its broadest sense, is the principle that every individual must receive which he deserves according to law. Justice is a notion described as constant perpetual will to allot to every man what is due to him. Every criminal wrong must be reciprocated with procedural stringency and penal consequences. The allegations embodied in FIR, prima facie, attract the mischief of Section 458 PPC, which is titled as “lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night after preparation forhurt, assault or wrongful restraint” and is accordingly made punishable with imprisonment upto 14-years. Unfortunately, neither any section for trespass was applied in the FIR nor the penal provision for causing hurt to the complainant was mentioned therein. It goes without saying that courts, even at bail stage, are not bound by the provisions of law applied in the FIR rather have to see the offence applicable from the contents of prosecution case.

After having arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the bail granting orders passed in favour of accused suffer from perversity and call for an interference from this Court, the question of foremost importance arises that under what provision of law these orders can be set-aside in the absence of any petition for cancellation of bail. A peep through the constitutional history of subcontinent reveals that High Courts are always bestowed with powers to supervis